BUYING health products from Amazon and other shopping websites because of good reviews can be a mistake, according to Scottish research.
Psychologist Dr Micheal de Barra said the posts do not provide an accurate reflection of their actual benefit because they portray them in a far more positive light than clinical trial data would suggest.
The research fellow at Aberdeen University said this was because people are much likelier to share a positive outcome rather than a negative one.
In the first study of its kind, he examined more than 1,600 online reviews of weight loss pills and high cholesterol treatments sold on on Amazon.com.
He found the average drop in cholesterol using buttery spread Benecol – which says it is proven to lower cholesterol – was more than three times greater than in carefully controlled studies.
Similarly, reviewers on weight loss pill Orlistat – sold over-the-counter as Alli in the UK – lost about twice as much weight (31lbs) as those in clinical trials (15.5lbs).
Dr de Barra said: “These treatments are not entirely ineffective.
“However, what we show is the reputation as described in these reviews is much more positive than the clinical trial data show.”
He explained reviews are not a deliberate attempt to mislead, but appear exaggerated as a result of a bias towards sharing good news.
Dr de Barra, who has an interest in historical and contemporary inaccurate medical beliefs, said: “Only some people who try a treatment will then go on to tell other people about their experience.
“However, this subset of people are usually only those who have good outcomes. So, you hear a friend of yours had a good result using a treatment of some kind, and you think ‘well maybe this works’.
“Your friend is probably not lying, but the problem is people with average or poor outcomes do not tend to share their experiences. This means you get a positively skewed view of the treatment.”
He said the study, published in the journal Social Science and Medicine, suggest people should be careful when it comes to review sites. It is believed to be the first study to compare clinical trial data with user generated content.
Dr de Barra warned: “We should be cautious about using reviews like these when deciding about health choices.
“These narratives have a powerful influence on our own future health behaviour because they provide simple and clear anecdotes, but this study shows they can be very misleading.
“These results also shine a new light on medical overuse, the use of treatments that are unnecessary and ineffective.
“Medical overuse is estimated to cost the $226bn (£180bn) in the US alone, and patient demand for medicines with limited value is one important cause.
“This study shows how a demand for ineffective medicines can easily develop when people rely on hearsay and narratives alone.
“Realistically, however, it is ridiculous to think every health decision we make will be informed by systematic reviews – people have lives to lead.
“This study shows it is important to be aware of the biases that can make informally acquired information unreliable.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here